Okay, let me get this straight.  This resolution makes NO difference in policy.  It is non-binding.  It doesn’t stop the troop REINFORCEMENT plan.   And  yet the Democrat-controlled House felt it was important to publicly declare that they don’t support OUR president.  They should be ashamed of themselves.

House Resolution Criticizes Bush War Policy



WASHINGTON (Feb. 16) – The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush ‘s decision to deploy more troops to Iraq  on Friday, opening an epic confrontation between Congress  and commander in chief over an unpopular war that has taken the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182.

“The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi , leader of Democrats who gained power last fall in elections framed by public opposition to the war.

“The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home,” Pelosi vowed after leading the House in a moment of silence as a sign of respect for those who are fighting and their families.

Citing recent comments by Democrats, Bush’s Republican  allies said repeatedly the measure would lead to attempts to cut off funds for the troops. Outnumbered, they turned to Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas to close their case – and the former Vietnam prisoner of war stepped to the microphone as lawmakers in both parties rose to applaud his heroism.

“Now it’s time to stand up for my friends who did not make it home, and for those who fought and died in Iraq already,” he said. “We must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them,” he added, snapping off a salute as he completed his remarks to yet another ovation.

Bush made no comment on the developments, and his spokesman said the president was too busy to watch the proceedings on television.

After a secure videoconference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Bush said the Iraqis reported providing troops to fight alongside Americans, making sure that no ethnic or religious factions are ignored in the security operations, providing $10 billion toward reconstruction and working on an oil revenue-sharing law.

“That’s good news for the Iraqi people. And it should give people here in the United States confidence that his government knows its responsibilities and is following through on those responsibilities,” he said.

More than 390 of 434 lawmakers spoke during four days of a dignified debate – an unusual amount of time devoted to what Republicans and Democrats alike said was the most significant issue confronting the country.

Supporters of the nonbinding resolution included 229 Democrats and 17 Republicans – fewer GOP  defections than Democrats had hoped to get and the White House and its allies had feared. Two Democrats joined 180 Republicans in opposition.

Moving quickly, Senate  Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., set a test vote for Saturday on an identical measure, and several presidential contenders in both parties rearranged their weekend campaign schedules to be present.

Republican senators said in advance they would deny Democrats the 60 votes needed to advance the resolution, adding they would insist on equal treatment for a GOP-drafted alternative that opposes any reduction in funds for the troops.

Even so there were signs of Republican restlessness on the issue. Only two members of the GOP rank and file sided with Democrats on an earlier procedural vote; the total figured to be higher this time.

The developments unfolded as a new poll showed more than half those surveyed view the war as a hopeless cause.

A sizeable majority, 63 percent, opposes the decision to dispatch more troops, although support for Bush’s plan has risen in the past few weeks from 26 percent to 35 percent, according to the AP-Ipsos poll.

The House measure disapproves of Bush’s decision to increase troop strength, and pledges that Congress will “support and protect” the troops.
Bush has already said passage of the measure will not deter him from proceeding with the deployment of another 21,500 troops, designed primarily to quell sectarian violence in heavily populated Baghdad.

Already, troops of the Army’s 82nd Airborne have arrived in Iraq. Another brigade is in Kuwait, undergoing final training before proceeding to Iraq. Three more brigades are ticketed for the Baghdad area, one each in March, April and May.

In addition, the Pentagon is sending two Marine battalions to Anbar province in the western part of the country, the heart of the Sunni insurgency.

Bush and his allies in Congress calculated days ago that the House measure would pass, and increasingly have focused their energy on the next steps in the Democrats’ attempt to end U.S. participation in the war.

“I’m going to make it very clear to the members of Congress, starting now, that they need to fund our troops,” Bush said earlier this week, a reference to legislation that requests more than $93 billion for the wars in Afghanistan  and Iraq.

Democrats have made clear in recent days they will use Bush’s spending request to impose certain standards of readiness, training and rest for the troops.

“That stops the surge (in troops) for all intents and purposes, because … they cannot sustain the deployment,” Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said recently.

Republicans pointed to Murtha’s remarks repeatedly during the day as evidence that despite their claims to the contrary, Democrats intend to cut off funds for the troops.

“This is all part of their plan to eliminate funding for our troops that are in harm’s way. And we stand here as Republicans … committed to making sure our troops in harm’s way have all the funds and equipment they need to win this war in Iraq,” said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader.

Up until a few years ago I was a happily independent voter.  I studied each candidate’s position on issues and voted without regard to party affiliation.  Since 2001, though, the Democrats have astounded me with their level of childishness and putting politics over integrity and country.  It is a sad situation.

Sphere: Related Content

3 Responses to “House Resolution Slams Bush’s Troop Reinforcement Plan”

  1. Rad Says:

    I am just sad about the whole thing. What is going on with our country? When did we become weak? I do not agree with a lot of Bush’s policies, but the Dems are just nuts.

    Thank Nancy Pelosi in a few years when terrorist attacks are a common part of our daily lives.

    PS. Did you see her smug smile when she slammed the gavel? pathetic

  2. beth Says:

    This has me so upset I can’t even blog about it. They have effectively sent a message to the enemy that they can do whatever they want without consequence. It’s put our troops in an untenable situation.

    Fortunately, the military doesn’t seem to be listening to them.

    I think the dems have brought about their own demise with this. The American people won’t stand for surrender and the dems are completely misreading what the public wants.

  3. Stanford Matthews Says:

    H Con Res 63 is a non-binding resolution. The problem is there is talk that this vote sets up cutting off funds to the military. When they had the floor debate in the House and gave all members a five minute period to offer a speech, Representative John Kline (R-MN) gave a compelling speech. He is a Viet Nam Vet and his son is currently serving in Iraq. I believe he is a Marine and his son is in the Army. The link on my name is for a page that has his full speech. It is not short but it will warm your heart. I hope Rep John Kline is as sincere as the speech would imply.

Leave a Reply